Posted on 09/16/2024 10:40:49 AM PDT by Morgana
Is Genesis a record of true history, given by God, or was it written by men trying to answer the questions that plague our world? An article I saw recently [from the Biblical Archaeology Society] makes the latter claim—that Genesis is just a compilation of etiological myths finally written down by the biblical authors.
Now, what is an “etiological myth”? The article answers this way: “The creation stories in Genesis served to provide answers to why the world was the way it was, such as why people wear clothes and why women experience pain during childbirth.” So according to this view, Genesis is myth but that doesn’t mean it’s not “true,” as myths “are stories that convey and reinforce aspects of a culture’s worldview: many truths.”
In support of this view, the article claims that the Bible has three different creation accounts: Genesis 1, Genesis 2, and “a third version alluded to elsewhere in the Bible, a myth of the primordial battle between God and the forces of chaos known as Leviathan (e.g., Psalm 74), Rahab (Psalm 89), or the dragon (Isaiah 27; 51).”
Now, we’ve previously addressed the contention that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory accounts—they aren’t. Genesis 1 is an overview; Genesis 2 provides the details of day six of creation week. And if you read the passages mentioned as a “third version” of creation, you’ll find they appear to either be about the exodus (not creation), perhaps a literal sea monster or Israel’s enemies or false gods.
Yes, there are many creation myths (both ancient and in our modern time), but Genesis isn’t one of them. It’s actual history. How do we know? Well, here are just a few reasons:
* Genesis uses the same structure and writing style throughout the entire book. There’s no break between the early chapters and Abraham—it’s all meant to be taken the same way, as history.
* The New Testament authors always treated Genesis as literal history, never as a myth or oral tradition. Jesus quoted the text of Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 as literal history in Matthew 19.
* Science confirms the Bible. If Genesis were a myth like the Gilgamesh Epic, science wouldn’t confirm it . . . and yet it does! For example, genetics confirms there’s only one race, biology shows that organisms reproduce according to their kinds, geology and paleontology confirm there really was a global flood, and so on.
Genesis isn’t a “convenient” way of answering questions, written down long after things happened. It accurately records the history we need to understand why we wear clothes or why childbirth is painful. Actually, Genesis is very inconvenient for the sinner! It’s that history that shows us that we’re not “good people”; we’re sinners who try to be our own gods, are wise in our own eyes, and whose only hope is the promised One who would crush the head of the serpent through his death.
Creationists who want this to be true, because a God who went zip zap 6000 years go is more powerful than a God who laid out a BIG UNIVERSE 13.5 billion years ago.
___ Never mind — read wrong — God made the universe 13.7 billion years ago, not 6000
You know I have my own questions on how old the earth really is but in the end I don’t care how many “bilyons and bilyons” of years old it is I know God created it. That is all I need to know.
But what are their credit scores? You couldn’t find an atheist to hack and publish them? You’re slipping.
Never mind the credit score how about the IQ score of some of these people I post about?
Our very limited ability to understand the truth does not invalidate it.
IMHO, we do this all of the time with complex subjects, start with a simplified but imperfect representation of a larger idea to make it easier to understand.
“The creation stories in Genesis served to provide answers to why the world was the way it was,“
Lol, right, Genesis just clears everything right up.
And why the hell would anyone need an explanation as to why people wear clothes? Your first cold night will teach you that.
The Bible is the exact Word of God and it expresses what He wants us to know. It all serves a Mystery that presumably will be clears up for us if Faith is kept.
I am new to the term “Aetiological”, But the way the term is described it seems to me none of Genesis is that kind of myth. First of all, most of Genesis is obviously written as literal history. But despite the articles contention, I think the earliest couple chapters are of a different style than the rest. They are truth told in a way that references some mythical ideas to get that truth across to people of the culture it was originally written to. These people were familiar with pagan creation myths more than we are. On the other hand they knew far less about astrophysics than we do and likely thought of the world as flat. Seems Genesis does not try to advance their science.
I do not think that there are to this day Cherubims and a flaming sword that are preventing us from returning to the Tree of Life at some particular latitude and longitude...thus I can not take Genesis 3 as literal history.
The creation accounts in Genesis first take some swipes at pagan creation accounts by making it clear that the one real God did all the things that the various “gods” were credited for with just his Word rather than having to wrestle mythical sea beasts and such. The language uses expressions that presume the primitive level of science they had in that day. Which does not make it untrue, it merely means that they knew less science than later people would, but that God still wanted them to know who made the sky (even if He did not care to reveal that the sky is not actually a firmament). If God had waited til our century to inspire the creation account, I suspect it would mention galaxies and solar systems, but would not correct our remaining misconceptions about them. Pretty sure He would make sure that whatever the details of creation are, He made it all.
The pattern repeated in each creation day is obviously some kind of well organized literary device we do not find elsewhere and those who study it seriously in the context of Samarian culture of the time will see a lot of meaning that most of us are oblivious to in it.
"‘Biblical Archaeology Society’ Claims Genesis Creation Account Is a ‘Myth’"
Genesis is comparable (imo) to Jesus teaching in parables which simultaneously enlightened believers with spiritual insights, while being perceived as nonsense to non-believers.
Yep, my take on it too.
Sorry, but I’ll take my chances with the word of an infallible God over the opinions of fallible men. It also helps if you get to know the Author.
Where did Paul say that?
The theology of the new testament rests on the fall of man which only makes sense in terms of a literal creation story.
Otherwise, the Son of God dying for sinful man ends up being meaningless.
Plus there is the case of God calling creation good, which makes no sense if death is part of creation.
Which is why death is eliminated when you get to the end of revelation.
They could be the same God. God says (and Einstein agrees) that time is fluid and relative depending on perspective.
They are not there because Eden was swept away in the Flood. No need for them.
A God powerful enough to create the universe is powerful enough to bend time to show a fully formed universe instead of a dark sky because it takes thousands or millions of years for the light to reach us from the stars we see. It was done for our benefit.
So if God created the entire universe 6000 years ago and put the dinosaur bones in the ground and created galaxies and put the billions of year old seeming light there no one would be able to prove that it happened 6000 years ago. It, to all scientific measurement, appears to be billions of years since creation. This makes it a pointless argument. Yes, it is a matter of faith, but not something that can be used to convince anyone. There is no evidence of recent creation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.